The Court of Criminal Appeal held that a sentencing judge who rejected the applicant's evidence as unreliable and unbelievable was entitled to decline to accept expert psychological opinions (including a PTSD diagnosis) that were substantially based on the applicant's self-reported history, without separately making express findings on each element of the mental health evidence. The Court further held that where the Crown's cross-examination and submissions, and the judge's own remarks during the hearing, put the applicant on notice that his evidence might not be accepted, there was no denial of procedural fairness in the judge rejecting unchallenged evidence of childhood sexual abuse. The adequacy of sentencing reasons was assessed by reference to the reasons as a whole, from which it could be readily inferred that the judge accepted neither that mental health contributed to the offending nor that it reduced moral culpability.
The full text is available to signed-in members.